I have a question that may have been already discussed, in which case, I apologize.

I have looked on the net to see if I could find an answer but haven't yet.

Which came first, the hen or the egg? Who contacted whom about 9/11? Did the government look for a suitable investor to buy the WTC so that it would be able to launch its 9/11 production, long waiting on a back-burner? Did Silverstein, who because of his wealth must have known people in government, contact them?

The federal government does not officially enter into it. We are told that the Port Authority (a bi-state agency for NY and NJ), that built and owned the WTC, put it on the market for lease and, just before 9/11, Silverstein picked it up. Of course there is probably nothing truthful in this story, considering that the WTC was a failing enterprise and nobody had an authentic interest investing on it.

Never forget that the scam needed a conspiracy theory behind it, to be promptly sold to the people with doubts and questions. The whole Silverstein story is clearly part of that conspiracy and must be handled with a lot of care.

Bottom line, we cannot know how things really went. Reasonably everything was rigged at masonic level, and today we are left to discuss artificial plots laid out for public consumption since the beginning, be them conspiratorial or not.

David Rockefeller, president of Chase Manhattan Bank, who envisioned a World Trade Center for lower Manhattan, realizing he needed public funding in order to construct the massive project, approached Tobin [President of the NY Port Authority]. Although many questioned the Port Authority's entry into the real estate market, Tobin saw the project as a way to enhance the agency's power and prestige, and agreed to the project. The Port Authority was the overseer of the World Trade Center, hiring the architect Minoru Yamasaki and engineer Leslie Robertson.(...)In August 1968, construction on the World Trade Center's north tower started, with construction on the south tower beginning in January 1969.[15] When the World Trade Center twin towers were completed, the total costs to the Port Authority had reached $900 million.[16] The buildings were dedicated on April 4, 1973, with Tobin, who had resigned the year before, absent from the ceremonies.

Ultimately it is relevant to note that 9/11 was planned at the expense of a huge public investment. Such was the WTC. This in my mind confirms the idea that the Twin Towers were built with 9/11 in mind, which is why they could not depend on an actual private investment and risk, but they had to be created (and demolished) at the expense of the public.

nonhocapito wrote:The federal government does not officially enter into it. We are told that the Port Authority (a bi-state agency for NY and NJ), that built and owned the WTC, put it on the market for lease and, just before 9/11, Silverstein picked it up. Of course there is probably nothing truthful in this story, considering that the WTC was a failing enterprise and nobody had an authentic interest investing on it.

Never forget that the scam needed a conspiracy theory behind it, to be promptly sold to the people with doubts and questions. The whole Silverstein story is clearly part of that conspiracy and must be handled with a lot of care.

Bottom line, we cannot know how things really went. Reasonably everything was rigged at masonic level, and today we are left to discuss artificial plots laid out for public consumption since the beginning, be them conspiratorial or not.

David Rockefeller, president of Chase Manhattan Bank, who envisioned a World Trade Center for lower Manhattan, realizing he needed public funding in order to construct the massive project, approached Tobin [President of the NY Port Authority]. Although many questioned the Port Authority's entry into the real estate market, Tobin saw the project as a way to enhance the agency's power and prestige, and agreed to the project. The Port Authority was the overseer of the World Trade Center, hiring the architect Minoru Yamasaki and engineer Leslie Robertson.(...)In August 1968, construction on the World Trade Center's north tower started, with construction on the south tower beginning in January 1969.[15] When the World Trade Center twin towers were completed, the total costs to the Port Authority had reached $900 million.[16] The buildings were dedicated on April 4, 1973, with Tobin, who had resigned the year before, absent from the ceremonies.

Ultimately it is relevant to note that 9/11 was planned at the expense of a huge public investment. Such was the WTC. This in my mind confirms the idea that the Twin Towers were built with 9/11 in mind, which is why they could not depend on an actual private investment and risk, but they had to be created (and demolished) at the expense of the public.

***Dear Nonhocapito,

Thank you for your response.

I understand that there would be no obvious link between the two. However, on the one side we have a government that wants an excuse to wage war and on the other, an individual who wants to make megabucks. Marriage made in heaven 9/11 could not have happened without a handshake between them.

Is there no kind of evidence of the two meeting, either in person or through aides, assistants, cocktail parties, White House dinners, etc.? Who stood to make the most profit personally? Silvertein or Bush? Both are guilty to me.

DeeJay wrote:Is there no kind of evidence of the two meeting, either in person or through aides, assistants, cocktail parties, White House dinners, etc.? Who stood to make the most profit personally? Silvertein or Bush? Both are guilty to me.DeeJay

The point is that neither are really relevant to the 9/11 story, probably. Their names were thrown to the public to be the focus of conspiracy theories or public indignation, essentially following bogus propaganda movies like Fahrenheit 9/11 and Loose Change. This is enough to argue that, very likely, they were nothing but patsies who acted as lightning rods.

I am not saying that they are innocent, obviously, but I don't think they counted as much as we were lead to believe. Their role might have been just a tad superior to that of one Buscemi or DeNiro. The ultimate purpose being, as always, to cover up the media fakery behind fantasy plots of betrayal, genocide and individual greed.

The 9/11 scam in my opinion cannot be attributed to the initiative of a few criminal minds: it is instead the product of certain organizations, the result of their goals and mindset. Those organizations, like corporations do, do not obey to the initiative of single individuals but rather use those individuals. The individual is there to hide and protect the interests of the cabal behind his own.

Unfortunately I think that we don't know most of the really significant names that held those meetings or laid out those plans that culminated with 9/11 and the following scams. They may occupy chairs in Hollywood, in Tel Aviv, in NYC or Langley or wherever, but their names might never have been pronounced in connection to 9/11.

DeeJay wrote:Is there no kind of evidence of the two meeting, either in person or through aides, assistants, cocktail parties, White House dinners, etc.? Who stood to make the most profit personally? Silvertein or Bush? Both are guilty to me.DeeJay

The point is that neither are really relevant to the 9/11 story, probably. Their names were thrown to the public to be the focus of conspiracy theories or public indignation, essentially following bogus propaganda movies like Fahrenheit 9/11 and Loose Change. This is enough to argue that, very likely, they were nothing but patsies who acted as lightning rods.

I am not saying that they are innocent, obviously, but I don't think they counted as much as we were lead to believe. Their role might have been just a tad superior to that of one Buscemi or DeNiro. The ultimate purpose being, as always, to cover up the media fakery behind fantasy plots of betrayal, genocide and individual greed.

The 9/11 scam in my opinion cannot be attributed to the initiative of a few criminal minds: it is instead the product of certain organizations, the result of their goals and mindset. Those organizations, like corporations do, do not obey to the initiative of single individuals but rather use those individuals. The individual is there to hide and protect the interests of the cabal behind his own.

Unfortunately I think that we don't know most of the really significant names that held those meetings or laid out those plans that culminated with 9/11 and the following scams. They may occupy chairs in Hollywood, in Tel Aviv, in NYC or Langley or wherever, but their names might never have been pronounced in connection to 9/11.

***OK, I get the idea that the "Idea" was bigger than one man or two men. One may even ask in this event: "Who needs to know?" I get it. BUT in light of this self-censored environment, what will ever become of this site's examination of photographs and videos? Does any of this matter in the end?DeeJay

DeeJay wrote:OK, I get the idea that the "Idea" was bigger than one man or two men. One may even ask in this event: "Who needs to know?" I get it. BUT in light of this self-censored environment, what will ever become of this site's examination of photographs and videos? Does any of this matter in the end?DeeJay

"Self censored"? "Who needs to know"?!

You are either misunderstanding what I said or deliberately trying to put words in my mouth.

All I said is that the Bush-Silverstein connection might not be so significant as the conspiracy theorists made it so far. I never said it is not valuable to research it. There is absolutely no self-censorship here and declaring that probably most of the names at the top of the scam are still hidden does not mean it should stay so. It just means that we should not follow the interpretations pre-cooked for us by the propagandists, which is what you were doing when you decided to focus on Bush and Silverstein. Something that made sense maybe six or seven years ago.

DeeJay wrote:OK, I get the idea that the "Idea" was bigger than one man or two men. One may even ask in this event: "Who needs to know?" I get it. BUT in light of this self-censored environment, what will ever become of this site's examination of photographs and videos? Does any of this matter in the end?DeeJay

"Self censored"? "Who needs to know"?!

You are either misunderstanding what I said or deliberately trying to put words in my mouth.

All I said is that the Bush-Silverstein connection might not be so significant as the conspiracy theorists made it so far. I never said it is not valuable to research it. There is absolutely no self-censorship here and declaring that probably most of the names at the top of the scam are still hidden does not mean it should stay so. It just means that we should not follow the interpretations pre-cooked for us by the propagandists, which is what you were doing when you decided to focus on Bush and Silverstein. Something that made sense maybe six or seven years ago.

***I am sorry, nonhocapito, I misunderstood. I have been on this site for about 2 weeks now and reading every day, starting from the top. Till now, I have not seen any exchanges about these two people I mentioned and my understanding of your reply was that the individuals don't matter, rather it is the organizations behind them that do. This makes sense and it also made me think that perhaps the reason I haven't come across such topics is that they are to be avoided. Mea culpa. It is something that I read into your reply. Certainly none of the reading I have done so far has shown any self-censorship, I just thought that this particular topic might be a touchy subject. Ha! I'm only about 6/7 years behind the times... Thanks for taking the time to reply, it was something that was niggling at me.DeeJay

If you want to follow that train of thinking, you may be lead to a few different celebrity criminals. One of them is Peter Munk, Zionist of Toronto, Ontario, who apparently - as the official story goes - bid on New York's WTC before Silverstein won the contract. He is allegedly a product of holocaust survivors, and he is understood by the working class to be rather criminal, like many of the megarich.

But is that a big surprise, either? I think nonhocapito is right.

To me, personally, this is a case of "socialism for the super class, dog-eat-dog capitalism for the rest of us."

The super class is a body of wealthy self-styled elite whose power comes from our agreement to honor it. Clearly, that is a mistake if they are going to be pulling this bullshit on us regularly, as seems to be the tradition of that crowd.

Those particular names have no new stories about 9/11 since Silverstein's "pull it" comment, that was - allegedly - a mistake. But who knows? These kinds of people might just be presented as a public test to see just how many people latch onto such "clues" handed us and give them a measure of the number of people who will actually pursue such an investigation. Go for it, and put some pressure on Silverstein if you're up for the goose chase it may ultimately turn out to be. If we're lucky, it will end up netting actual names. I doubt you can touch him though.

hoi.polloi wrote:If you want to follow that train of thinking, you may be lead to a few different celebrity criminals. One of them is Peter Munk, Zionist of Toronto, Ontario, who apparently - as the official story goes - bid on New York's WTC before Silverstein won the contract. He is allegedly a product of holocaust survivors, and he is understood by the working class to be rather criminal, like many of the megarich.

But is that a big surprise, either? I think nonhocapito is right.

To me, personally, this is a case of "socialism for the super class, dog-eat-dog capitalism for the rest of us."

The super class is a body of wealthy self-styled elite whose power comes from our agreement to honor it. Clearly, that is a mistake if they are going to be pulling this bullshit on us regularly, as seems to be the tradition of that crowd.

Those particular names have no new stories about 9/11 since Silverstein's "pull it" comment, that was - allegedly - a mistake. But who knows? These kinds of people might just be presented as a public test to see just how many people latch onto such "clues" handed us and give them a measure of the number of people who will actually pursue such an investigation. Go for it, and put some pressure on Silverstein if you're up for the goose chase it may ultimately turn out to be. If we're lucky, it will end up netting actual names. I doubt you can touch him though.

***Right now, I am still reading and trying to understand. I am a long way from pursuing anyone! I was just wondering about the serendipity of things... DeeJay